Commonwealth v. Mejia-Matos

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee v. RICHARD MEJIA-MATOS Appellant

J-S68023-13

No. 3507 EDA 2012

SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

FILED: MAY 28, 2014

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence June 12, 2012

In the Court of Common Pleas of Lehigh County

Criminal Division at No(s): CP-39-CR-0003223-2011

BEFORE: BENDER, P.J., OTT, J., and STRASSBURGER, J.^*

MEMORANDUM BY OTT, J.:

Richard Mejia-Matos appeals from the judgment of sentence imposed on June 12, 2012, in the Court of Common Pleas of Lehigh County, following the denial of post-sentence motions on November 15, 2012. On May 11, 2012, a jury convicted Mejia-Matos of criminal conspiracy to commit robbery of a motor vehicle.¹ The court imposed a sentence of 60 to 120 months' imprisonment. On appeal, Mejia-Matos asserts the following errors: (1) trial counsel's request for a continuance was improperly denied; (2) trialcounsel's Batson² challenge should have been granted; (3) the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction; and (4) the imposition of a mandatory minimum sentence was improper. Mejia-Matos's Brief at 5.³ Based upon the following, we are constrained to vacate the judgment of sentence and remand for resentencing.

The trial court aptly set forth the facts of this case as follows:

On July 23, 2011, Oliver Diaz departed his home in his Ford Escort to purchase breakfast groceries at a local supermarket called C-Town market. On his return, he stopped at a light at 14^th and Tilghman Streets in the City of Allentown and noticed a BMW vehicle "way too close" behind him. Mr. Diaz began turning onto 14^th Street when "two individuals come close to me, asking me to give them my car." Mr. Diaz, who spoke with these individuals in Spanish, told them that they had mixed him up with someone else.

One (1) of the two (2) had a pistol and pointed it at Mr. Diaz's head. Mr. Diaz then began to accelerate, and with that, one (1) of the two (2) individuals fell off the car. The second individual continued to demand Mr. Diaz's vehicle. Mr. Diaz testified that he jumped out of the vehicle when the individual with the gun "racks it." He then ran in the direction of a nearby business, where he asked a "gentleman and a lady" for help. He was able to observe the two (2) individuals enter his vehicle and drive off.

During the course of his testimony, Mr. Diaz identified a photograph of the co-defendant, Freddy Pena.⁴ It was his testimony that Mr. Pena was not the individual with the firearm. [Mejia-Matos] and the co-defendant were apprehended approximately an hour or so after the carjacking, but Mr. Diaz was only able to identify the co-defendant.

Officer Michael Beidelman was dispatched to a "carjacking in progress," and was the initial officer to respond to 14^th and Tilghman Streets. He was "flagged" down by Mr. Diaz and two (2) witnesses. He received both a description of Mr. Diaz's vehicle, a Ford Escort, and the "suspect" vehicle, a BMW with "after market rims." The BMW was also identified as having a New York registration. One of the witnesses, Carlos Pagan, observed the majority of what happened to Mr. Diaz. He described Mr. Diaz as "real scared", and confirmed the involvement of the BMW, which he described as having "chrome and black" rims. He was later taken to the location of where a BMW was stopped by the police, and observed a black BMW with chrome rims.

Officer Joseph Iannetta also received a dispatch related to this incident, which included a description of the victim's vehicle. On his way to 14^th and Tilghman Streets, he spotted Mr. Diaz's unoccupied vehicle, which was parked in the area of 12^th and Gordon Streets. The Ford Escort was discovered approximately "four city blocks" from where it was taken from Mr. Diaz. Latent prints were secured from this vehicle, two (2) of which were able to be identified. One (1) from the center of the outside of the trunk, and the second, which was "between the rear window and the rear passenger door," matched Freddy Pena. When Mr. Diaz inventoried his vehicle, nothing was missing, not even the groceries.

Officer Iannetta, after the Ford Escort was taken into custody, went to the Communications Center to review footage from the police cameras. While there, another officer radioed that the BMW may have been located on the opposite side of town. Officer Iannetta immediately responded, and located aBMW with New York license plates. A "high risk felony vehicle stop" was initiated, and [Mejia-Matos], who was the driver, and the co-defendant, Freddy Pena[,] were detained inside the BMW. It was the opinion of Detective Salvador Aprile, and conceded by [Mejia-Matos], that this BMW, with its "unique rim," was the same one that the police cameras captured of this entire episode.

Mr. Pena, the co-defendant, testified that he had known [Mejia-Matos] for approximately two and one-half (2 ½) years, and described him as a friend. He claimed to have only previously visited Allentown once or twice before this incident and on both of those occasions with [Mejia-Matos]. [Mejia-Matos] on those occasions had driven the BMW used in this carjacking.

Mr. Pena testified that he came to Allentown on the night before this incident with [Mejia-Matos], and attended a party at [Mejia-Matos]'s sister's home. The next morning, [Mejia-Matos] and Mr. Pena went to the residence of "Caesar," who was described as [Mejia-Matos]'s nephew. Mr. Pena learned that there was a man who owed [Mejia-Matos] money, and that [Mejia-Matos] had a plan to collect it. The three (3) of them departed the residence with "Caesar" behind the wheel of the BMW. They proceeded to a residence where they observed a man exit and enter a white Lexus. They followed the vehicle to the C-Town Market, where coincidently Mr. Diaz was buying his groceries. When they next observed the Lexus, no one was inside, but they did observe what turned out to be Mr. Diaz enter his Ford Escort. The three (3) confederates thought that he was the same man that had been in the Lexus, and they began following that car. A decision was made to intercept the Ford Escort, and the events then unfolded as described by Mr. Diaz.

Mr. Pena testified that he was the first person to approach Mr. Diaz, and [Mejia-Matos] joined him. [Mejia-Matos] had a "pistol," and pointed it at Mr. Diaz. The two (2) then drove off in the Ford Escort and followed "Caesar," who was driving the BMW. [Mejia-Matos] and Mr. Pena examined the Ford Escort, looking for money, but found nothing. They parked the Ford Escort, wiped it down with a "small rag," and then drove off in the BMW with "Caesar." Following a stop at "Caesar's" residence, where [Mejia-Matos] abandoned the gun, a decision was made to let "Caesar" drive the BMW in the direction of thehighway ramp to New York. [Mejia-Matos] and Mr. Pena would follow in "Caesar's" red pick-up truck. They did so, and when they reached an area believed to be near the ramp, they exchanged vehicles, and "Caesar" departed. Thereafter, the two (2) did not immediately proceed onto Route 78, but stopped at a local park. Upon leaving the park, the police began following the BMW and a stop was initiated shortly after [Mejia-Matos] failed to stop at a red light.

[Mejia-Matos] testified and denied his involvement in this offense. He acknowledged that he had come to Allentown with Mr. Pena, and had done so in the past. He also admitted that his cousin's name is Caesar, who owned a red pick-up truck. On the morning of these events, he claimed he did not get out of bed until 9:30-9:45 a.m. When he did, Mr. Pena was in the home, and requested that they return to New York. The two (2) got inside the BMW, and proceeded in a direction [Mejia-Matos] believed would lead them to the highway. He decided to stop at a park with thoughts that it would be a good place for a future family barbeque. Thereafter, the two (2) returned to the vehicle, and exited the park. A short time later, the police stopped the BMW he was driving, and arrested them.

Trial Court Opinion, 2/8/2013, at 2-6 (footnotes omitted).

As noted above, Mejia-Matos's case proceeded to trial. On May 11, 2012, the jury found him guilty of criminal conspiracy to commit robbery of a motor vehicle and not guilty of robbery of a motor vehicle. Prior to sentencing, the Commonwealth filed a "notice of mandatory sentencing." See 42 Pa.C.S. § 9712(a). Consequently, the court imposed a sentence of60 to 120 months' imprisonment. Mejia-Matos filed timely post-sentence motions,⁵ which were denied on November 15, 2012. This appeal followed.⁶

In Mejia-Matos's first argument, he claims the trial court erred in denying his motion for a continuance prior to jury selection after learning that Pena, the co-defendant, would be testifying for the Commonwealth. Mejia-Matos's Brief at 27. Specifically, he states he "did not have adequate opportunity to investigate any of the information provided during the interview." Id. Moreover, "[g]iven the surprise notice of the proposed testimony, the serious nature of the charges, [and] the circumstantial case against [him], ... [Mejia-Matos] asserts that the Trial Court committed reversible error by failing to grant the request." Id. at 28 (citation omitted).

By way of background, on the morning that jury selection was to commence, the Commonwealth notified defense counsel that Pena, the co-defendant, entered a guilty plea and agreed to testify against Mejia-Matos. N.T., 5/8/2012, at 2, 5. Counsel objected and requested the court grant a continuance. The Commonwealth offered to turn over Pena's statementsand prior criminal record. Id. at 4-5. After hearing the parties argue, the court denied the request. Id. at 8. That evening, defense counsel met with Pena in the presence of a Commonwealth investigator, Pena's counsel, and an interpreter for one hour and 26 minutes. The following morning, counsel reported to the court that he conducted a comprehensive interview with Pena and he "was not impaired...